Sorry.

Yeah, let's have one industry choose our future on behalf of the entirety of humanity.

Not that this sub would have a problem with that, of course.

>Diffusion models will be remembered as the beginning of the end of the digital art industry. MusicLM and other similar tools that will surface in the near future will be remembered as the beginning of the end of the music industry.

I definitely think they'll be remembered as the start of revolutions in both digital art and music, but I'm not sure that'll they'll be remembered how you envision so. We'll see.

>And it's not a hell of a leap to say this is gonna happen within the current decade.

I guess we'll find out on Jan 1, 2030, but I think humans will still be playing a role in both the art and music world by then (even if quite different).

>Our brains think linearly, but AI growth has been exponential for years now.

Good point. But it's also worth noting that AI has hit roadblocks in the past after a period of exponential improvement. I don't see why it's not possible for that to happen to the current AI boon at some point (I think it probably will).

>Like it or not the music industry is next.

AI hasn't replaced any industry yet. It hasn't even made significant inroads into the replacement of any industry, as far as I'm concerned, and I think that'll remain the case for at least the foreseeable future.

And also, going from this model (MusicLM) to the entire music industry being replaced is just one hell of a leap to make.

My personal and humble opinion is tools like these others will help musicians flourish for a good while, before the tools become so helpful that they actually begin disrupting the industry.

>I'd say AI music is pretty much completely solved in 12-24 months.

I know what you mean by solved, but honestly, it seems pretty sad and ridiculous that we're trying to "solve" music, like if it were some tedious and boring domain and not something that brings vibrance to society and that many people enjoy partaking in.

But I don't expect anything less from tech geeks, tbh.

Edit: by tech geeks I mean the ones creating the technology. Sorry if I happened to confuse you.

Joke?

Is studying AGI even a thing, though? AGI does not exist yet and could never do so (potentially), so I'm not sure how one can study something nonexistent. To have theories, sure, but that's another thing.

I think most experts fit in the latter group, though, and the ones who have very optimistic timelines are a minority in that group too, and not just in general.

My guess is that most AI researchers are pretty familiar with AI beyond narrow cases, so I think most of them are qualified to give an answer to "will AGI ever arrive, and if so, when?".

Also, I get the sense that a lot of the AGI crowd knowingly engage in hype to get more publicity, and it makes sense. "AGI soon" is a lot sexier of a discussion to touch on on a podcast (for example) as opposed to "AGI far away".

>I want to live in fantasy world.

This sub is really weird.

10 years, maybe??? 🤷‍♂️

Best of luck!

On Thursday.

Wdym?

This is flat out false.

>I could certainly see animated movies being ready very soon.

Maybe soon but not weeks soon.

I'm almost positive he meant generate movies eventually and not later this month bc there is no way, even considering the amount of progress AI has made in recent years, that full-blown movies are already possible.

Of course, we'll know later this month, but I'm extremely skeptical, to say the least.

Idk why one would take pleasure in telling "I told you so" to a person who's live has been disrupted by technological progress.

>they're delighting in the chaos that AI will bring.

Weird.

I've seen this comment a lot lately on this sub and it strikes me as some sort of justification to not even attempt to regulate/set boundaries around new technology.

Dude, there have to be regulations on AI at some point. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the NY edu dep, but to say we shouldn't even attempt to set rules and regulations because they'll result in a failure, yeah, I don't agree with that. The industry can't have total free rein.

>it doesn't look like a prediction but an announcement

I think it is a prediction. I mean, he literally says prediction in his tweet.

>I think those same domain specific (narrow) LLMs are going to start putting people out of work in '24 on a fairly wide scale.

>If LLMs and other AIs continue to progress like it did in 22 (or even faster if you factor in exponential growth ), then another iteration or two and we will start to see the world tremble, economically socially and politically. The next 3-5 years could completely redefine society and humanity.

I'm personally really skeptical that the events that you mentioned will happen in such a short amount of time, but I guess we'll find out in a few years.

>the rate of progress in 2022 eclipses that of any previous year outright in the history of the entire field of AI development

Perhaps, but you said in the previous comment that it eclipsed every single previous year combined, if I'm not mistaken. That's why I gave the answer that I gave.

We absolutely did not make more progress in AI from Jan-May of 2022 than in all the many decades prior. This is an insane case of recency bias.